Olympus Am. Inc. v Greene House Surgicare

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Olympus Am. Inc. v Greene House Surgicare 2018 NY Slip Op 32874(U) October 30, 2018 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 017224/2013 Judge: James Hudson Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] Short Form Order $ty>remt C!out1 oftlit C!ounty of$uffeto»Y ~ $tate ofNew 'Y'orli - Part XLVI ·I ~ PRESENT: HON. JAMES HUDSON Acting Justice of the Supreme Court x---------------------------------------------------------x INDEX N0.:017224/2013 OLYMPUS AMERICA INC., MOT. SEQ. NO. {}Q/ Mot D Plaintiff -againstGREENE HOUSE SURGICARE. GREENHOUSE MEDICAL P .C.~ EVANS CREVECOEUR. and JEAN VA VAL. Defendants. ME YER SUOZZI ENGLISH & KLEIN PO Box 9194. 990 Stewart Avenue Garden City, NY 11530 HOWARD B. ARBER, ESQ. 64 Hil ton Avenue Hempstead. NY l 1550 x---------------------------------------------------------x Upon the following papers numbered I to 28 read on this motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Dismiss the Affirmative Defe nses; Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers 1-18: Notice of Cross Motion and st1pporti11g papers Q; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers 19-26 ; Replyi ng Affidavits and supporting papers 27-28 ; ether-ft; and upon due deliberation; it is, ORDERED that Pla in tif~s motion is granted to the extent that partial summary judgment is granted as against Greenhouse Medical, P.C. and the individual Defendants on behalf of Greene House Surgicare; and the affirmative ,d efenses are dismissed: and it is further ORDERE D that the parties are directed to appear for a conference at One Court Street, Riverhead, New York, Part XLVI on Monday, December 3rd, 2018 at 10:00 AM. In this breach of contract action, Plaintiff Olympus America, Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "Olympus") seeks money damages in the amount of $282.504.7 l for Defendants' failure to purchase the minimum commitment pursuant to an E ndo-Therapy Advantage Loan Agreement ("the Agreement''). On November 281h, 2006, the Parties executed the Agreement. Defendants executed the Agreement in their corporate capacities. Greene House Surgicare was the customer. In exchange for this loan. Defendants obtained the use ofcapital Page I of 8 [* 2] I lh-1111111.\ 1w,•r1t ·<1. Inc 1· <ire<'l1<' /i1111s1: .' i'urgic ttrt', ,,, 11!. Index ,\'11.: 01 7 ~2./ '_'fll 3 equipment and agreed to pu rchase a required minimum of certain qtwnt itics or accessory equipmen t (also knu\\'ll ns the "mininrnm co1111ni lmcnt'·) as listed in Schedule J\. The term t)f' the /\g.rccmcnt was for live years and commenced on November 28t11 • 2006. There is no dispute thnl Dcfrndants failed to order the n.:q uired minimum commi tment each month. Plaintiff sent an invoict: on December 29t11 • 20 I I for the outstandi1rn. balance due. Although the Agreement cxrircd by its terms on Novembl!r 2W". 2011. Plainri ff forma lly terminated the Agreement \\'ilh Di...·f'cndants by letter dated Decemh~:r ] I' t. 20 I I. No payment was allegedly made h: Defendant s and the capital equipment \\as not returned. This ac1ion was Ct)Jlll)lCllCcd Oil .I u ly 2"d. 2013. ~ ~ The complaint contains four causes of nction: breach of contract as agai nst all Del~rnfon1s: I) breach of cont ract as against Defendants Greenhouse Medical. P.C .. Crcvccoem, and Vaval: 2) account stat ed as against all D...-frndants: 3) quantl!m merl!il as against Gn.:cnho usc Medical. P.C.. Cn:~ \ ·ecoeur an d Va\'a l: and 4) replcvin as against all Defendants. De kndant:;' answer contained ge neral denials <Ind nine af'lirmative defenses: l) lack ovt:r Defendant Crcvccocur: 2) Plaintiff breached the AgreemenL by failin g Ill repair the subject equipment: 3) Defendants Crcvcc ~>cur and Vm·al <l re not proper Ikti:ndnnts: 4) Pla intiff foi led to pick up the subject equipment despite Defendants· repeatt:d offers lo retu rn same: 5) Defendants· signatures "·ere procured by fraud: 6) Plaintiff imcn tionally misrl.!prescntcd the term s o f' lhe Agreem en t: 7) improper venue: 8) Plaintiff overcharged Defendants: and 9) Plaintiff breached the Agree ment by foiling to repair the equi pment. o fjuri ~ dictinn Plai nti rr now moves for pm1ial summary judgment again :-> ! Ddcndants pursuant to C PLR 3212 and to dismiss Defendan1s· artirmatiw dcfcn!:-e:>. It is \\'di established that summarv jud gm1:nt mav be grn ntcd onlv wh~n it is clear that no triable issue fact exists (A lvarez l ' Prospect llo.\ p. . 68 NY2d 320. 508 NYS2d 923 11986] ). The burden is upon the mo\'ing party to make a prima fhch.> showing that he or she is entitled to sum nwryj udgment as a matter ofla\\. hy presenting c,·idcnce in admissible fonn demonstrating. lhl' absl.'ncc of any rnalt:rial f~1ct s (Giuffrida 1· Citihank Corp .. I00 NY2d 72. 760 NYS2d 397 I:?.003 j). Once a pri111afi:1cie sho\\'ing. has been made. the burden shifts to the pany opposing the mmion lo produce e,·idcntiary pronr in admi ssible form sufficient to establish material issues of fact " ·hich require a trial o f the action (Alvarez 1• Prospect Hosp.. 68 NY2cl 320. :\O~ NYS2 d 923 [ 19861). or ; • I,,,.; .. - .. In support or the motion. Plaintiff submits. imer olia. the pleadings, a copy of the Page 2 of 8 [* 3] I Jh 1111 111,, llll<'rt< 11. / 11c 1· <''"' L' lll' li11 11.\ l' Surg t l '<ll'L'. L' f <1/ .l \g recment. a cop~ nfthe /\mcndmcnt to rndo-Thcrnpy /\ch antagc I .oan /\grccmenl. a Cllp)' orSdlcduk /\. <1 cop~· llfthe Terms and Clmditions. a copy of the IT /\th antagr Compliance I ktail. and the JkTSOllal anidavit or John Repko. l"hc J\~!l"c...'c...'111 cnt pn)\' i<lc~. imcr alia. that ii" Customer foikd to -.~H ist~· a minimum cnmmi tm<.:nl oLtc cc~so r ics identified in SchL"duk 1\. 01~ rnpu s mny at its discreti on. incn;asc th e prices lo he paid b~ Customer for the accessories or requ ire the purchase o f the capital i.:quiprnclll at the...· equipment \'aluminn price. The 1\ g n.~cmc 111 alsl) prn,·1lks that the min imum cl1mmitme11 ts shall cnnstitute binding purchas<.: commitments b~ Customer and CustomL'r shall he liable to Olympus. consist.L'nt \\'ith thc tcn ns tlf th<.: At!n:c1rn:nl. in the..' C\'L'!lt the..' min imum commilmcnls an: not satislied. Jn addition. t.he ;\g.rccmcnt requi red that tht.: equip1m:nt location sl ay thL' same as th<.: ddi,·ery location. <llld that Customer shall not mt)\\.' the l.!quipmc1n from thal locntinn ,,·ithout the prior written consent or Olympus. The /\gr<.:cn1cnt also pn)\'i<lcd that the l'ustomn·s signa tu rl' ac ·no\\·kdg.cs that Customer hm·c 1'L'ad. u11ckrstnod. and accept the terms and conditions ol'chc.: /\ grecmcnl. !\plain reading of' the .l\gn:c..·ml'llt r-: \ cal-; that I· ,·ans Cn.:,·ecnc...:ur c.\c...:cutcJ the /\grcL'mcnt ns l'rL'sident. and Jean V;1\·al c...·'\ecutl·d the /\g.rec1m:nt as S<.:crctary. Plaintil'r:-. ag.<...'1\l. l ~ ric I lalvor-;011. cxecutl·d the /\grccm1.:nt as \!ice PrcsiJcnt ;md (ic..·1h.:ral Manag<.:r nfTndo Therapy. !'he..· Amendment to the 1\ grccmenl. datc...·d December -t 111 • 2006. pm,·ides that the /\µr<.:cme111 is nwdi lied to thl.! l.!.\tcnt that a nc\\' Schedule /\ was attached. Otherw!sc. the terms tlf' the /\~;L'e lll Clll remained in l"uJI force and cffi:ct. Pur"uant tn Paragraph 6L' ol'thc l'cn n s and Condit ions: ... customer r\;.'prescnts. " arrants. and Cll\'l.:nan t:-. to Olym pus that: (c) customer :;ha ll. at customc...·r' s cost and expense. mai ntain th<.: capital equipment in good rcpa ir. opcra l ~ng condition. and \\'Ol'king order. includ ing. but not limited to the pcrl'onnancc ol' rcprncessing.. ckaning. and maintcnancc procedures described in thl.! instructi on manuals. Pam graph I~ or the T..:nns and Conditions pro,·ides that : ...,\ tk foult und..:r the...'. O\'Clllbcr 2006 Aµrl'CnlC...:111 occur:-. i r. i llft'r aliu. Cu!>lomcr (a) dth:s not m ake payment of' an invuicc \\·ithin 10 days al'ter ils due date. {b) attl'mpl ~ lo rc mm·c the cnrilal equipment rrnm the equipment locatit)ll. or docs not comply \\'llh L'ach term and condition or this /\g.rccmcnt. including Pa~~ J or 8 [* 4] I )~1 ·111;•111 • 11111'/'/('(/, /11,· I' (jr,'t'/ll' ht11ISt' .•..:ur~"''ll'<!, ('/ 11/ /11cl"·' \ '11. : OI - 2.!-1 20 I} \\'ithoul limirntion the purchase or any minimum commitment ... if Customer fail. w satist~· a minimu m conunilln\!nl. Olympu~ may 1erminatc 1his /\grcement \\'hik requ iring Custumcr lo return all capital equipment in good condition. repair and \\orking order to a location to he spcci lied hy Olympus. and t:ike any other steps and. m pursue any nthcr remedies .i\'ailabk <ll l<m or in equit~. Parngrnph 13 or the Terms and Conditinns n:quires that Cus tomer retu rn the capital cquipme rll lo Olym pus. ut Cll'>l\llllCr° :-, ex pens<.:. at the end or the No\·emher 2006 /\grccnicnc. Paragraph 15 nl'thc Terms and Conuititms. entitled ··complete /\ grcement." expressly states: - ... thi s /\!..'.rccment c<.rnstitut<.:s the sok and entire aorcc111c111 ~ hd\\\~cn Olympus and CustonK·r wi th respect to the subject matter or this Ag.rcement...1\ll prc\'ious and contemporaneous agreements and understandings rel ating {l) the subject math.Tor this /\ grc..-.: mcnt are hereby superseded:· Paragraph 16 pnwides. · ·~di di sputes shall he adjudicated cxt:lusiYely by a court or compctcnl jurisdiction within the County or Suffolk. Stale or '\Jc,,· York or the Federal District Court in the Eastern District orNc\\' York. Cusromer irrC\'OCably consen t ~ lo the jurisdiction and ,·enuc ur th(' stah: and fede ral court:-, t)!' Ne\\' York and \\'iii\ cs ~111y rights ID seek a trnns kr l>r n:nUL' for nny reason or LO c lailll that the l'orum is illClll1YL!lliClll. John Repko ll\ crs ill his personal anida\'it that he is the SL·nior Ma1wgcr ur Colkctinn s and Deductions for PlairnifT. I le re\'ic\\'e<l the busin<.:ss rcct)rds maintained by Plai nt i!Trdating to this matter. I k stales that as set forth on thl.! sccnnd p<tge of Schcduk /\ or the Nnvcmbcr ~()()() Agreement. Cir('elle I louse Surgicnre \\'<IS n:quircd tn purchase $53.+.4.:W ol' accessori<.:s during the term of th(' Nm·cmbcr 2006 /\grt'.cmcnt. \\'hich amount constituted th e mi nimum commi tments. PlaintilT''s drn.:ument cntitkd FT /\dvantag.e Comp! ia nce I ktai I b~ Custrnm:r sets forth wlwt accessories ( irccnc I louse Surg.ican.: purchased from Plai ntiff under the /\grccment through August .+. 2011 . The docum<:nl indicates that <in.:enc rlouse Surgicarl.! had purchased less than 25° o nf its minimum commitments. To date. the in,·oice has nnt hL'Cll paid. nor has the capital eljuipmenl hccn returned. Rcpku further state" that Ocfrndant Cn.:vccocur admitted in his deposition that Defendan ts moved the capital equipment from the original l;!quipmcnl location and arc scill Page -+ of 8 [* 5] <lh111r111 . I 111C'11c11 Inc 1· <i1v<'n,• lio11se .\'urgicar~·. l'I al /11d<'x :\ o .. or!_'.J _'!JI 3 using the 1..·quip11H~nt dcsritc Plainti tr-; ckm~111cl in the tcrmin:1tion kllcr that the capital cquipment be returned. The nwn:mcnt of the capital equi p ment nnd the foi lun.· to n.:turn the L'qllip111CJ1l al the l\..'l'llli llatiOll Of' the /\grL'L'l11Cl1t COllSlilU(C ndditional dcfoultS UlldCr th L' 1\gn.:cmcnt. Repko alsu st;llcs that Defendant Crcvccoeu r·s deposition tc<;timony l:Onfirmcd Ikt~·n <lant:- · earlier mlmission that Greene I h)ttsl.! Surgican.: is not n kg<1 Ily-rect>gn izcd entity of' any kind . There fore. Repko st;itcs that DclCndants C1'C\ ccocur and Va\'al arc 1ll1\\' pcrsonally responsibk for (lrccrlL' I louse Surgicare's ad mi 1ted dL'fault:-. Plaintiff has <kflll)lhlratcd. rrima foci\.'. its entitlc menl lo ju<lg.mcnl a~ a 111.llt1..·r or la\\' \\'ith regard ({) liabil ity (Git~fredda l ' Citibank Corp .. s11prn). l'hc burden then shirted lt) Defendants to produce c,·identiary prnor in admissible !'orm sulfo:icnt to cswblish mat erial issues of foct \\'hich rc·quin: a trial llf1l11..· m.:linn (A fr"re-;, i• Prospect flosp .. supra). In opposi ti on. Di.:l~nda nts submit 1hc personal artith1,·i1 ol' lkl~ndant Crc\ ccoeur. portions or Crevecol'tll"s deposit ion lestininny. and the deposition transcript or John Repko. Crc\·ecocur m·er'\ in his artic.ht\ it 1ha1 he is a physician dtrl) licensed to practice m\!dicine in the Slate or Ne"· Yuri-.. f le and Dd'cndant Vaval arc the principals or the lk!'cndants Grccm: I louse Surgicare and Circen hnusc Medical P.< '. I k slates that when he and Vnvn l decided to enter into the Ag.rccmcnl \\'ith Pluintil'L they were told hy Plainti rrs representative that Plainti IT \\ Puld maintain and repair the equipment ut i1s expense. The~· executed the /\grccmcnt in their <.:ap:.H.:ities as corporate officers and. therdore. -; hould not be hcld personally liable. Crcvecocur st;llcs that he and Va,«11 relied upon the rqm:-;cntatitms by Plaintilr s agen t. ho,,·cn:r 1hey suh!->c4ucntly learned that Plaimilf s repn:scntative had lied to Dekndants hccau::;c \\·hcn 1he cquip1m:nt nccdcd repair. l'laimitT rL'fused to send anyone w exa mi ne or repair iL un ks~ Dcr~:mlant s pt1id a repair fl:c. In addition. Crc\·ecoL't1rswtes that Plaint iff ,,·a~ charging them an exorb itant sum if the~ did 1wt purchase what was consickrcd to be a surticicrH amnunt or suppli1..:s. l'n.:vccocur also objecls to Mr. Rcpko·s :1f'!idavit and ckrosi1ion testimony .sinct: he lrns lh) knnwledgc of the incident'' hich led to the current situati<lll. lkf~ndanl Cn:,·ccocur testified at his deposition that he and Defendant Vaval fell prl..'.s!'> ured to si!!.n thc l\gr1..·emcnl and lhal the ~<tics representative made promises which they karncd \\l'n: nol included in the /\g.recment. lkfcn<lant con<.:c<.kd that he did take the ti1m.· to a1.kqumdy read the /\gn:emcnt prior tn executing it. I k ackJHm kdgcd that he did rwt order the mi nimu m 11llll1her oracccssorit.:s 1hrot1ghout the tcrm orLhe /\g.r'CL'lllent. Dckndillll slatcd that a lkr arprnximatcly three years the endoscopic equipment und c1.)mpu tcr \\·erc not \\nrking properly. Plaintiffn.:fusecl 10 repair th...: cqu irmen t unkss Di..:l~ndants paid a large sum or money. Subsequently. Ocll:ndan1s realized that the program was rnH working for them and noti fit.:d Pia inti IT. I lowever. another rcprcscntati\'C came t1.> their 1.irticc and ach·iscd them 1o pay S 14.000.00 pcr month. \Yhich Crcvccocur did for six 11wnths. lkl'cndant also Pugc 5 or 8 [* 6] Staled thnt ()rccne I louse Surgicarc i~ a trade name ror Gn.TllC House Medical. r.c. an<l is nol a registered cnlity. However. Defendan t stated that Greene I louse Medical. P.C. co11tim1cs to do husin<.:ss. John Repko slntcd at his <.kposition thnt he is employed by Plaintiff as senior manager of"colkctions and deductions. I k staled that he recalls thi s ma tter f'rnm apprnximntely three yL·<irs ago \\·hen thc complaint \\'HS Ii kd. I le also n.:ccin:d ~he documents in <I !"ax prior lo his deposition. I le had no in,·oh·cmcnt in the initial transact ion and had 110 contact " ·ith Delendanls. The indi,·idual who ne~oti<lled the contracl is no l\)11e_e r work in~'- for Plai ntiff. .... lklcndant:.;' counsel ohjcctcd tn the rrnduction or Mr. Repk() since he had no personal knowledge ()rt he focts. The dcp\)Sition \Yas lermi nated and Plaintiffs counsel slipulatcd that he \\"t)uld find the address for that individual or someone with personal knowledge or lhc l~1cls relating lo this lawsuit. The record reveals that counsel subsequently stipulated to a deposition uf lhe fo rmer employee if' he \\·as calkd lO testi T)° at trial. ~ Tht.: Cuurt linds tlwt Ddcndants have foiled to rais~ a triuhk issue or fact wi th regard ll> liahilit: against (i rc~nhnusc Medical. P.C. and the ind i,·idunl Ddendants (Afrarado 1· Prospl!c:t flosp .. supro). Cn.~\'t.:coeur's slalemcnt that he foiled lo read the agn.:cment docs 1w1 rclic,·e him ot'his obligation ol"perf'onning under th<.: 1\grccm1.:nl. ";\ party is under an obligation lo read a drn.:u ment bdixc accepting its terms and can1wt avoid the effect of the documenl by asserting Ithat! he or she did not read o r understand I its I con!L'nts . . . . /\n indi\'idual who signs or accepts u \\Til tl.!n C(ll1lracL in t hL~ ;1bscnce o f" fraud or other \\·J'l)ngl'ul HCl Oil the part ur the olhl'.r contracting parly, is conclusively presumed to km)\\· its conll.!nts and to assent to them·· (Fiore v Oakwood Plaza .51topping Celller, Inc.. 78 NY2c.I 57'2. 591. 578 NYS2d 115 11 99 11: 1lfe1-:.xer v Aet11a Ins. Co .. 227 NY.+ I l. 416: 1920 NY l.F XIS 852 I 1920 j). Dekndam< unsupported al legation that RL·pJ.:o "s aflidavil wa~ not bnscd 011 pcrs()nal kno\\·lcdg.c is insufficient to prove otherwise. Repko, a:-\ Plaintiffs sen ior manager or colkcli\)flS anJ (kducti(1ns. may oiler evicknce in his affid~vit based on personal knt)\\"lcdgc obwinl.!d l"rom a rcyic,,· or Plainti s recprds. A bus inc-;:-; recurd will he a<lmissibk if lhat rL·cnrd -·,vas made in the regu lar coLirsl'. ul· any business and ... it was the regular course of such bus iness to ma ki.:: ii. at the time or th~ act. transaction. occurrence or event. or within a rcasonahk time thcrL'<I lier" (On e Step Up. Ltd. •' Webster Bus. Credit Corp .. 87 AD3d 1. 925 NYS2d (>I 11 st Dept 20 111: CPl.R -+518 [al). In any event the lack of personal knowledge goes to the" ci gill and not the ac.lm issibi IitY of the records ( Pencom ...S)•s., Inc. v Slwpiro, 23 7 . AD1cl 1-+-L 658NY S2<l15 8 I 1st Dept 19971). Tllcrcforc. Rcpl-.0 's affidavit is admissihlc. tr - - [* 7] f J~l'lllf '"' l mt'rt<"<I. I ll< 1· ( ,'r1't'll<' /i1111.\t' Sur gt«Clrt! . <'fol l lndcr \\\ .·ll-cstahli:'\hcd agency law. a contract bcl\\'1:cn indi,·iduab purpPrting to ;H.:t 011 hL'ha lf of'a nnncxi-;tcnt principal enter inln a cn1llr;1ct wi lh a third p.1n~. the contra\.'.! docs not fo r that reason alone become vo id or voidab le (1lfetro Kitc'1 e11works Sales, LLC 1• Co11ti11e11tal Cabin ets. r.r.c. 31 /\D3d 722. ~CW NYS2d 79 [1cl lkpt 200()j). Linhi lit y is hasl·d on the rule that one \\'hn assu mes to act as age nt for a nonexistent principal is himsd r or hcrsclr liable un thl· L'Ontract in the abscm:c an agreement to the contrar~ and {)ll the theory or a hrea.;; h or illl imp lil·d warra nt~ or authority (Id. I. Thus. court:-. IHl\'C dctnmine<l that the individual \\'ho signed the con tract ma ~ he li ahlc \\·here there wns no existing cnrpnratilm under an~ name hcl'ausc. umkr those circ umswnccs. the Pl :tinti ff has "no rcmcd~· except ng.ainst tht: indi\'iduals who acted as agents of those purpnncd corpora tions" (A 11i1111r;.i11K E11tertai11111e111, Inc. I ' Louis /,t~fi·edo A .\"SOCS . . xg 1:. Supp. '2d 265. '271. 2000 LIS Dist 1.EXIS 35751 SD NY 2000 J ). /\ppl~ ing lhcse rrincipks. thl· Court li nds that Plninti IT denwnstratcd.pri111a lucie. its entitkmcnt to judgment as a mntll:r ol' lnw thnt the individual Dekndants "e1·..: liabk under this theory. !"he Cl)urt f'urt h4-:r li11<.b that sinn: Green l l o u~e Surgil.:are had neither dcjocto nor de j ure exi~ll:m.: e at the time the contrnl't \\·as entered into. it can not he hound h~ thl.! le.Tm-> Lhereor··unlcss th<: obliga ti on is assumed in some mann1.:r h~ the corporatil)fl after it comes into L'Xistencc by adl)pting., rntif)·ing.. nr an:cpling il .. (1\ll!tro Kitcll emvorks Sales, LLC 1• Co11ti11e11tal Cuhinets. LLC. supra at 81: I.+ NY .fur 2d. 13u:--i ni.:ss Relationships ~ 97 ). I la ving submitted no facts \\'h ich demonstrate that Oreenl· I lmbt: Surgicarc h:i<l de j i.1cw 1wr de J ure cxistcnCL'. Defendant~ foiled to mcct tht:ir burden or ra ising Cl triahlc issue or foci (A frarez I' Prospect limp.. supru) . ·1here fore. that branch of th..: motion i:-. grnntt:d to the cxknt thm partial sum mar) judgment is granted as against ()rec nhousl' M~dical P.C. and the indi' idual Defendants on bdial f' of Cirt!enc I louse Surg11..: arc. or Plaintiff also <kmonstratcd its prima f acie cntitlem~nl lo dismissi ng the allirmati\·c <.kfcnSl'S as ;1 mat te r la\\' ( Git~{frida I' Citibank Corp .. supro). Tile lirst a ni rnwti\ l' dd\:nse is dismi-;scd inasmuch as Cre\'t!<.:oc ur appeared in the a c li~m and foiled to 1110\'l' lo di~m 1 s s on thi s ground \\ ithin 60 (sixty) days or serving an nns\' l'I' (CPl.R 3.21 I [cl). The ~ l'co nd and 11inth anirmati,·e defenses arc di smissed since the /\ g r~· c m c11l proYidcs that the cu:--t orncr is respon:-.ihk for repair and nrni ntenanc..: nr lhl: capital equipment. The third a rfinnatin.'. dcli.:nsL' is \\·ithout merit. since. as dbcussed abm·c. Defi.:ndan ts executed a co111rac1 tm bd1.t1r or a 1 Hm- ent i t~ and arc consequently p ers onal!~ liable. The fourth anirmatin: delt-nsc is also di smissl..'d pursuant to Par;1grap h 13 of the Tcrms and Conditions " ·hid1 pro,·i<.ks that tht.: customer must return the capital l:'quip111e1H to Plaint iff upon the expiration nr tile /\ grct:llll'lll. or [* 8] <Jfi mpu.,· l11i.•nn1 /11: 1· c;,.e,·11.• l!tJ11.1e ,\'11rg1< ,1r<'. ,,, <1/ /11il,·.r \'11 fl I - .' ..'-1 .'fl /J r!t(' firth and si:-;th artlnnali\·c (kknscs arc di smissed for the re-asons statL'd ahon:. /\llhough lkkndant lcstifiL'd that thL' prn111ist:s madL' \'erbally b~ Plaintilrs rcprescntati\'l' pri\ir l\' l'X\:cutin g thl' /\grl'cmcnt. lkkndant CrC\L'CO<.:llr concL'dl'd thilt ht: did not r~:ad thr...· /\g.r<..Tnh~nt to n.'ril~· thcsr...' pnrn1i scs. In any cwnt. thL' mt:rg~r claus1..· ~H Paragraph 15 nft lK' Terms and Cnmlitiuns prl'clutks any oral agreements ,,·IJich \\'L'l'L' not mcnH1riali1.L·d in \\Tiling. Mon:m·cr. I kl\:nd:rnts foiled tn suhrnit ad miss ibk l'\'it.kncL' u!' fraud un Plai1Hi1r~ part. Th c scn:11lh artirmati\'l' dc:knM: is ,,·itlwut merit. inasmuch as pursuant to Paragraph 16 llf thc Terms and Condition:-.. lkkn1.bnts agn:l'd tu thL' ,·cnuc of thi~ ~1ctio11 i11 th1..· statl' and kdcral courl:'i of Ne\\' Y urk . I· inall~. the eighth affirmal iv\.· ckknsc is ab\) \\'ithout mL·rit. Th is tk l'cnsc is bd ied hy DI.' !i.:ndanl C rc,·ecocur' s dcrH)Si t ion t~s t imon> \\ ht>rci n he stated t ha! h\..· had 110 idl'a hm' many acccssoriL's '''L'l'C purchasc:d. and had no reason to hcliC\'l' that Pl<1i11t i rr s mm figures " rn: mi staken. Defendants ha,·c foakd 10 raise a triable issue of foci in opposition (.-1frar e;:, l ' Pm.\pect llmp . . s11;Jro) . /\n:mdingl>. I' '41i111i1r s 11101 ion is grantL'd 10 the c.\tcnt that p~1rli al sumrn~1ry judgmcn1 is granlcd <IS aga inst ( ll'L'L'llhOllSI..' fVkdiG1I. P.C. and lhc indi\'idual Dcknc.bnh on hL'hal r or ( in:cnl' I louse SurgiGtrl': <llld the aflirma li,·c dcfrnscs arc dismisscd. The foregoing. tkcision constitutes the Order of" the Court. DATF.D: OCTOBER 30 111 , 20 18 n lVERll EAO, NY /~ J );-- \ -- .. I H Ol'f.JAMES HUDSON Acting J ustice of tlte Suprem e Co11r1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.